Liver International
Special Issue: Proceedings of the 7th Paris Hepatitis Conference International Conference of the Management of Patients with Viral Hepatitis, 13–14 January 2014, Paris, France. Guest Editors: Patrick Marcellin and Tarik Asselah. The publication of this supplement was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Gilead, Janssen Therapeutics, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, AbbVie, Novartis, Idenix and Alios.
Volume 34, Issue Supplement s1, pages 11–12, February 2014
Review Article
You have free access to this content
Lawrence Serfaty*
Article first published online: 23 DEC 2013
DOI: 10.1111/liv.12407
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Keywords: boceprevir; low viral load; Pegylated interferon; rapid virological response; ribavirin; telaprevir
Abstract
Boceprevir and telaprevir-based triple therapy is now the standard of care for the treatment of genotype 1 patients. However, dual therapy with pegylated interferon and ribavirin should be discussed in treatment-naïve patients with good predictors of response. A recent published trial has shown in non-cirrhotic patients with low viral load at baseline, similar efficacy of a 24-week course of dual therapy vs a 24-week course of boceprevir-based triple therapy in case of rapid virological response. Accordingly, addition of protease inhibitor should be discussed after 4 weeks of dual therapy in this easy-to-treat population.
Boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TPV) are direct acting antiviral agents that target the protease of the hepatitis C virus (HCV). In combination with pegylated interferon (PEG) and ribavirin (RBV) they increase the effectiveness of antiviral therapy in naïve patients infected with genotype 1 resulting in an increase in sustained virological response (SVR) from around 40% to nearly 70% or more [1, 2]. The major disadvantages of protease inhibitors (PIs) are the possible development of viral resistance (which may be long lasting and reduce future treatment options) and a range of side effects. Furthermore, PIs are expensive and substantially increase the overall cost of therapy. Therefore, while triple therapy is now the standard of care for treatment of genotype 1 patients [3], we will discuss whether dual therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV has still a place and in which subgroup of patients.
Predictors of response to PEG-IFN/RBV
The factors favouring response to PEG/RBV have been well-identified. In treatment-naïve patients with genotype 1, they are mainly age (<40 years), viral load (<600 000 IU/ml), absence of severe fibrosis and absence of insulin resistance [4]. Nucleotide polymorphisms on chromosome 19 upstream of the interleukin 28B (IL28B) gene have been found to be strongly associated with SVR [5, 6]. The statistical weight of this parameter appears to be similar to that of viral genotype. In CC homozygotes (rs12979860) of Caucasian origin (around 30% of patients) without severe fibrosis, the percentage of SVR was estimated to be 86% vs 36% and 43% for genotypes TT and CT respectively [7]. Analysis of viral kinetics indicated that a rapid virological response (RVR) was obtained in 30% of CC patients vs 5% of CT or TT patients. Therefore, around 80% of patients that achieved a RVR were CC homozygotes. The chance of achieving a SVR in patients achieving a RVR was greater than 90%, regardless of IL28B genotype. In contrast, in CC homozygotes who do not achieve a RVR the probability of achieving a SVR was only 60% [7]. Thus, by considering IL28B genotype and virological response at week 4 it is possible to identify a subgroup of patients with mild fibrosis in whom PEG-IFN/RBV therapy results in a SVR in 90% and in whom triple therapy would probably not be more effective. It is interesting to note that in this group, triple therapy can be shortened from 48 weeks to 24 or 28 weeks.
PEG-IFN/RBV in patients with low viral load and rapid virological response
In patients with low baseline viral load (<400 000 IU/ml) who achieve RVR, a short course (24 weeks) of PEG-IFN/RBV therapy is sufficient to obtain a SVR [8]. In these patients, PEG-IFN/RBV is still clearly the best option. Accordingly, French guidelines have recommended that PEG-IFN/RBV therapy should be considered the first-line treatment in treatment-naive genotype 1 patients with predictive factors for a good response to treatment [9]. A recently published trial has confirmed these recommendations [10]. In 233 treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype1 without cirrhosis and with a low baseline viral load (<600 000 IU/ml) who are treated with PEG-IFN/RBV lead-in therapy, 101 (48%) with a RVR were randomized to 20 weeks of additional therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV or to 24 weeks of PEG-IFN/RBV/BOC. The rate of SVR was similar in both groups (88% vs 90%), regardless of viral subtype, IL28B or ethnicity. Safety was also similar for side effects, rates of dose reduction (33% vs 33%) or discontinuation (8% vs 6%). These results indicate that adding PI does not change the duration of therapy or efficacy of treatment in treatment naïve patients without cirrhosis with a low baseline viral load who achieve RVR.
PEG-IFN/RBV in treatment-experienced patients ?
Triple therapy is clearly the standard of care in treatment-experienced patients [3, 9]. However, PEG-IFN/RBV can be a therapeutic option in some patients with a resistant variant in whom PI treatment has failed. We reported the case of a patient who relapsed after a 12 week course of TPV-based triple therapy and who was cured by a 48 week-course of dual therapy despite the presence of a resistant variant[11]. While waiting for new molecules retreatment with reinforced regimen of PEG-IFN/RBV could be a therapeutic option in genotype 1-naïve patients who relapse after PI-based triple therapy.
Conclusion
In the setting of first generation PI-based triple therapy, dual therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV is still a therapeutic option in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 and good predictors of response (absence of cirrhosis, low baseline viral load ± IL28B CC). In this subgroup of patients, triple therapy should be discussed depending on the RVR at the end of a 4-week course of dual therapy. This discussion could theoretically be extended to the use of next generation PIs based on triple therapy such as simeprevir or faldaprevir, for a treatment duration of at least 24 weeks [12, 13]. Regarding sofosbuvir-based triple therapy, the 12 weeks fixed duration for all patients should be a strong argument against the use of dual therapy, [14]. In the near future, all-oral regimens with high SVR rates and good safety will probably mean the end of interferon-based therapy for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C [15].
No comments:
Post a Comment